<\/p>\n
\u201cNo Kings\u201d rallies, like this one in Albany last October, could run afoul of a protest \u201cbuffer zone\u201d law proposed by Gov. Kathy Hochul.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Jim Franco\/Times Union<\/p>\n
Protesters gather outside the Planned Parenthood on State Street in Schenectady in 2017.<\/p>\n
Theresa Schweigert is one of the anti-abortion activists who sometimes protest on the sidewalk outside the Planned Parenthood in Schenectady. A bill proposed by Gov. Kathy Hochul would force those protesters to move or face arrest.\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
That legislation, included in the governor\u2019s budget, would create protest buffer zones around houses of worship and facilities that offer reproductive medical services. In Hochul\u2019s version of the bill<\/a>, protests that \u201calarm and annoy anyone\u201d would be forbidden within 25 feet of churches, synagogues, mosques and abortion clinics.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n The impetus for the bill, we\u2019re told, is a protest that happened outside Park East Synagogue in Manhattan late last year. The topic, broadly speaking, was the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.\u00a0<\/p>\n For sure, some of the protesters’ pro-Palestinian chants,\u00a0including \u201cglobalize the intifada,\u201d were objectionable. But it\u2019s important to note that the protest was not targeting a religious service. Instead, it was in opposition to a group that had rented the space: Nefesh B\u2019Nefesh, which helps Jews move to Israel and also promotes migration to deeply controversial settlements in the occupied West Bank.\u00a0<\/p>\n You don\u2019t have to agree with those protesters to believe in the right to protest on sidewalks and other public property. You don\u2019t have to agree with the protesters to think Hochul\u2019s proposed law is a ridiculous overreaction and an unwarranted attack on the First Amendment.\u00a0<\/p>\n Make the Times Union a Preferred Source on Google to see more of our journalism when you search.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Add Preferred Source<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n At the Planned Parenthood on State Street in Schenectady, the sidewalk is separated from the building by just a few feet of grass, putting it within the proposed buffer zone. The law, then, would push Schweigert and other protesters down the street, essentially forcing them to protest in front of buildings that are not Planned Parenthood.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Kind of obscures the point of the protest, no?<\/p>\n \u201cThe further you go from the abortion center, the further you are from someone who\u2019s having an abortion and looking for a reason to change their mind,\u201d\u00a0Schweigert, a Round Lake resident, told me. \u201cWe\u2019re courteous to passersby. We\u2019re model citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n Nevertheless, it\u2019s likely the protests \u201cannoy\u201d\u00a0someone, as most protests do. So, they\u2019d have to move.<\/p>\n But here\u2019s an interesting twist: Planned Parenthood is also opposed to\u00a0Hochul\u2019s proposed buffer zones.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n \u201cWhile everyone deserves safe access to reproductive health care facilities and houses of worship, any policy ensuring this access must also be effective, legally durable and respect our long-held right to free speech,\u201d said Robin Chappelle Golston, who heads Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts. \u201cThe proposals we have seen fall short of that standard and should not advance.\u201d<\/p>\n Planned Parenthood and pro-life activists don\u2019t agree on much, so when they both say proposed legislation is a bad idea, maybe we should listen.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hochul\u2019s bill needs to be content-neutral to have even a slight chance at constitutionality. That means a pro-choice rally in front of Planned Parenthood would be as illegal as a pro-life rally.\u00a0Any annoying speech within the buffer zones could be punished by 364 days in jail for the first offense and up to four years for the second.\u00a0<\/p>\n A year in jail for speech?! Talk about Draconian. What is the governor thinking? Doesn\u2019t she realize that criminalizing speech will get the state sued, and rightfully so?<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t stop because someone says you\u2019re going to get sued someday,\u201d Hochul said, as reported by <\/a>the Times Union\u2019s Dan Clark. \u201cI get sued every day of the week.\u201d<\/p>\n Keep in mind that the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act already prohibits threats or force that intimidate or interfere with a person trying to enter an abortion clinic or house of worship. So, if that protest at Park East Synagogue was out of hand or intimidating, there was already a law available to police.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hochul\u2019s proposal isn\u2019t about harassment. It\u2019s truly just about speech.\u00a0<\/p>\n Somehow, a similar bill in the Legislature is even worse. The legislation from state Sen. Sam Sutton and Assemblyman Micah Lasher, both Democrats, includes buffer zones so broad that they would extend out into the street near clinics and houses of worship, making all sorts of speech illegal.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n